[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index] [List Home]
Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs

I did not say there will be a Java EE 9. I said, it is *legally* possibly that Oracle would do that, as they keep the trademark "Java EE".

-Markus

 

 

From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Werner Keil
Sent: Samstag, 2. Dezember 2017 16:23
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs

 

There won't be a Java EE 9. Beside a possible use of EE4J by some Oracle products it made relatively clear that more and more solutions and customers should use the Cloud and things like the Fn project.

 

We can hope, existing standards like JMS, JSF, CDI, etc. can be upgraded keeping their javax.* namespace, but for anything that might be added whether it's Circuit Breakers, Health Check etc. they will have to find a new package name space. Config and JSR 382 were lucky with timing, but it is also a JSR that may be used with Enterprise solutions as well as Desktop or standalone/SE ones, so it is more a standalone JSR even if it should benefit a future Enterprise platform, too.

 

Werner

 

 

On Sat, Dec 2, 2017 at 1:34 PM, <ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Send ee4j-community mailing list submissions to
        ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx

To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
        https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
        ee4j-community-request@xxxxxxxxxxx

You can reach the person managing the list at
        ee4j-community-owner@xxxxxxxxxxx

When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
than "Re: Contents of ee4j-community digest..."


Today's Topics:

   1. Re: JCP and existing specs (Markus KARG)
   2. Re: JCP and existing specs (reza_rahman)


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Message: 1
Date: Sat, 2 Dec 2017 11:50:23 +0100
From: "Markus KARG" <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'EE4J community discussions'" <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs
Message-ID: <02c701d36b5b$5da53360$18ef9a20$@eu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

Reza, to be absolutely clear: *Whether or not* a standardization will actually happen, and whether the EE4J PMC will *actually* serve as JSR spec leads, is not yet decided by the PMC. What I wrote the is just the de-facto status in case a Java Standard has to be done *now*. Nobody right now wants such a standard, so this is a purely theoretical analysis of the current legal state. This may and possibly will change in (near) future, and is mostly up to the trademark holders and the free will of the PMC. Also, it cleary looks like there will never be a "Java EE" outside of Oracle's ownership, not today and not in future, as they do not (yet) intend to give away that trademark to the Eclipse Foundation. "EE4J != Java EE"; EE4J v1 will be an implementation of Java EE 8, but EE4J v2 might be something different, and (while being higly unlikely) at least in legal theory there could be a Java EE 9 published by Oracle but not being covered by EE4J. One is a trademark (purely legal issue), th
 e ther is a development project (IP on source code). The PMC decides about "EE4J". Oracle decides about "Java EE". Just to be absolutely clear.

-Markus



From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of reza_rahman
Sent: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 23:30
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs



I sure do hope what you say is true at this point. While it would have been really great to decouple Java EE from the Oracle realm of ownership, perhaps the JCP is the best bet in getting branding and packaging issues with the EE4J move resolved.



Even with the JCP, Oracle will still not allow a non-Oracle JSR to use the Java name, but at least the javax package would be secured without a bitter struggle.



Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone



-------- Original message --------

From: Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Date: 12/1/17 3:08 AM (GMT-05:00)

To: 'EE4J community discussions' <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>

Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs



There is a very good reason to do so. IMHO the JCP is -still- the sole standardization organization which is allowed to publish official industrial standards bearing the word "Java" in the standard's name. Oracle has not yet officially announced its will to change that. Eclipse is just the place where we all work together to develop the content of these specs (spec text, APIs, RIs, TCKs), but at the end, it is -still- up to the JCP to accept it as an official standard. Hence the Eclipse projects will do "code first" approach and ask the JCP for official standardization afterwards. This "separation of concerns" also is what the EE4J PMC and Mike Milinkovic told me at EclipseCon Europe 2018, and I doubt it has changed since. So the EE4J PMC simply serves as the new spec lead in the JSRs, and fulfils all duties like organizing the expert groups (= the EE4J Subprojects) and filing the needed paperwork.

-Markus



From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leonardo Lima
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. November 2017 20:06
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs



I'd say "none"? :)



On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Maintenance releases are not allowed until everything has been moved to Eclipse (at least that's what we were told these days when asking for a Security API MR). At that point, and if we finally decide to move away the JCP, what would be the reason to do MRs there?





Regards,

Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero



El jue., 30 nov. 2017 a las 19:46, Leonardo Lima (<leomrlima@xxxxxxxxx>) escribi?:

Hello, Guillermo.



"Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation?"



My understanding is that this means that there might be Maintenance Releases of these JSRs fixing bugs or updating the JCP version, for example.



New versions of the Java EE / EE4J Specs would *not* be done thru the JCP.



Regards,

Leo.





On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Hi,

Reading the JCP september minutes, I find the following statement from Will Lyons: "[...] existing Java EE specs and maintenance would continue through the JCP, but Oracle does not expect to file new JSRs for Java EE related technologies. [...]"

Everything I've read in this list indicated EE4J would have no relationship with the JCP. Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation?





Regards,

Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero



_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community



_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community


_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20171202/1ceae38f/attachment.html>

------------------------------

Message: 2
Date: Sat, 02 Dec 2017 07:34:44 -0500
From: reza_rahman <reza_rahman@xxxxxxxxx>
To: EE4J community discussions <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs
Message-ID: <mailman.118.1512218088.19401.ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"

OK. What you stated is basically my current understanding of the situation. The important part is not to give up, inform the community, listen to what the community has to say and make sure that community view is heard clearly by everyone.
As a reminder, if we had given up in the community based on what we thought the "powers to be" wanted, there would have never been a Java EE 8 and perhaps not even this discussion. Let's be patient and let's keep trying. With some luck, it will all work out somehow.
Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone
-------- Original message --------From: Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 12/2/17  5:50 AM  (GMT-05:00) To: 'EE4J community discussions' <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs
Reza, to be absolutely clear: *Whether or not* a standardization will actually happen, and whether the EE4J PMC will *actually* serve as JSR spec leads, is not yet decided by the PMC. What I wrote the is just the de-facto status in case a Java Standard has to be done *now*. Nobody right now wants such a standard, so this is a purely theoretical analysis of the current legal state. This may and possibly will change in (near) future, and is mostly up to the trademark holders and the free will of the PMC. Also, it cleary looks like there will never be a "Java EE" outside of Oracle's ownership, not today and not in future, as they do not (yet) intend to give away that trademark to the Eclipse Foundation. "EE4J != Java EE"; EE4J v1 will be an implementation of Java EE 8, but EE4J v2 might be something different, and (while being higly unlikely) at least in legal theory there could be a Java EE 9 published by Oracle but not being covered by EE4J. One is a trademark (purely legal issue), th
 e ther is a development project (IP on source code). The PMC decides about "EE4J". Oracle decides about "Java EE". Just to be absolutely clear.-Markus?From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of reza_rahman
Sent: Freitag, 1. Dezember 2017 23:30
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs?I sure do hope what you say is true at this point. While it would have been really great to decouple Java EE from the Oracle realm of ownership, perhaps the JCP is the best bet in getting branding and packaging issues with the EE4J move resolved.?Even with the JCP, Oracle will still not allow a non-Oracle JSR to use the Java name, but at least the javax package would be secured without a bitter struggle.?Sent via the Samsung Galaxy S7, an AT&T 4G LTE smartphone?-------- Original message --------From: Markus KARG <markus@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> Date: 12/1/17 3:08 AM (GMT-05:00) To: 'EE4J community discussions' <ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx> Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs ?There is a very good reason to do so. IMHO the JCP is -still- the sole standardization organization which is allowed to publish official industrial standards bearing the word "Java" in the standard's name. Oracle has not yet officially announced its wi
 ll to change that. Eclipse is just the place where we all work together to develop the content of these specs (spec text, APIs, RIs, TCKs), but at the end, it is -still- up to the JCP to accept it as an official standard. Hence the Eclipse projects will do "code first" approach and ask the JCP for official standardization afterwards. This "separation of concerns" also is what the EE4J PMC and Mike Milinkovic told me at EclipseCon Europe 2018, and I doubt it has changed since. So the EE4J PMC simply serves as the new spec lead in the JSRs, and fulfils all duties like organizing the expert groups (= the EE4J Subprojects) and filing the needed paperwork.-Markus?From: ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:ee4j-community-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Leonardo Lima
Sent: Donnerstag, 30. November 2017 20:06
To: EE4J community discussions
Subject: Re: [ee4j-community] JCP and existing specs?I'd say "none"? :)?On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:58 PM, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Maintenance releases are not allowed until everything has been moved to Eclipse (at least that's what we were told these days when asking for a Security API MR). At that point, and if we finally decide to move away the JCP, what would be the reason to do MRs there???Regards,Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero?El jue., 30 nov. 2017 a las 19:46, Leonardo Lima (<leomrlima@xxxxxxxxx>) escribi?:Hello, Guillermo.?"Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation?"?My understanding is that this means that there might be Maintenance Releases of these JSRs fixing bugs or updating the JCP version, for example.?New versions of the?Java EE / EE4J Specs would *not* be done thru the JCP.?Regards,Leo.??On Thu, Nov 30, 2017 at 12:21 PM, Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero <z06.guillermo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:Hi,
 Reading the JCP september minutes, I find the following statement from Will Lyons: "[...] existing Java EE specs and maintenance would continue through the JCP, but Oracle does not expect to file new JSRs for Java EE related technologies. [...]"Everything I've read in this list indicated EE4J would have no relationship with the JCP. Does it mean existing specs will need to be continued on the JCP after the Eclipse donation???Regards,Guillermo Gonz?lez de Ag?ero?_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community?_______________________________________________
ee4j-community
mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community
_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/private/ee4j-community/attachments/20171202/d6a7cfde/attachment.html>

------------------------------

_______________________________________________
ee4j-community mailing list
ee4j-community@xxxxxxxxxxx
To change your delivery options, retrieve your password, or unsubscribe from this list, visit
https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/ee4j-community


End of ee4j-community Digest, Vol 4, Issue 25
*********************************************